Scientists at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Research used physics, statistical analysis and computer simulations to link extreme rainfall and heat waves to global warming. The link between warming and storms was less clear.

"It is very likely that several of the unprecedented extremes of the past decade would not have occurred without anthropogenic global warming," said the study.

The past decade was probably the warmest globally for at least a millennium. Last year was the eleventh hottest on record, the World Meteorological Organization said on Friday.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Last year for me was extremely unusual weather wise, we had a very mild winter but a ton of rain dumped on us in the summer. Thank God because I can't stand the snow. It's March now and we are hitting like 80 degree temps, it's insane. I live in CO...

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

They may or may not be right, heck, they probably are, but it really doesn't matter. Until their models and algorithms are subjected to more public scrutiny, are presented in a falsifiable manner, and can demonstrate strong predictive ability this is a non-issue. Regardless of whether or not they're right, they haven't demonstrated that their work deserves to be taken seriously.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Certainly not, more people need to attend college courses on geoscience and learn about our planet and what we are doing to it.More people also need to read books like "The Long Emergency" rather than buying into the filth that Fox News decides to feed them.

Even listen to Patriarch Bartholomew and other figures who speak out about our environment.

This year, we barely had a winter, we have barely had a spring so far (it's been more like summer).

Global climate change is a reality and even if part of it is natural, we are undoubtably making it worse.

Only those who listen to Faux News and refuse to pick up a real science book would be so foolish to deny that we are harming our environment severely. It's all a part of the absolute idiocy of the American mindset. We're fat, selfish, stupid, gluttonous, arrogant and willfully ignorant. We believe it's our duty to live as we want and to force our lifestyle on others like we are the adherents of a religion of hedonism trying to convert infidels to our gluttony.

Europe gets it, while Western Europe is morally and religiously compromised, they are still thinking clearly when it comes to science and our environment. They live far more sustainable lifestyles than we do, they didn't destroy their sustainable cities, and yet they still manage to fight to lower their impact on the environment.

The future will look at us in scorn and with hatred because of how ignorant we've chosen to be about our role as God-ordained protectors and stewards of the world.

1. That human activity causes global warming, as opposed to natural processes.2. That global warming is a bad thing. (Consider the explosion of wealth and culture after the MWP.)

We learned this week that the Medieval Warm Period was global, not just confined to the North Atlantic, proving the entire globe can warm and cool apart from human influence.

I think the panic over global warming is ignorance of history. The planet has been far hotter and far colder than it is now, even during mankind's existence. Why should we say that the climate of 1950 is the ideal that we must maintain at all costs?

Polluting groundwater and burning down rainforests is a lot bigger environmental concern to me than global warming.

I also live in the Midwest, and this winter was wonderful. I don't have to move to the tropics anymore.

Certainly not, more people need to attend college courses on geoscience and learn about our planet and what we are doing to it.More people also need to read books like "The Long Emergency" rather than buying into the filth that Fox News decides to feed them.

Your first problem is you assume too much to support your own beliefs.

I'd agree with the overtones (not them in particular, but that they are being shoved down out throats), and there is alot of bunk science being presented, but there is something going on.

Quote

Even listen to Patriarch Bartholomew and other figures who speak out about our environment

I am glad the EP is talking about it, but I think he has much bigger concerns that should take up the majority of his time.

Quote

Polluting groundwater and burning down rainforests is a lot bigger environmental concern to me than global warming

Ah, but not as big of a money-grabbing venture, so.......

Quote

Al Gore

I find it funny every time that moron opens his trap. Ask anyone in Tennessee what they think of the guy. They know he is a fraud. Take a look at his house. That thing is about as energy efficient as ice skating up a hill. Or how he flies around in the most wasteful personal jet made, shaking his finger at folks about pollution. All the while cashing in those checks for "carbon offsets" that he sells. This guy is a complete fraud and should never be considered seriously about anything.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

I think the panic over global warming is ignorance of history. The planet has been far hotter and far colder than it is now, even during mankind's existence. Why should we say that the climate of 1950 is the ideal that we must maintain at all costs?

I worry about things like agriculture being devastated, particularly in poorer areas of the world where people don't have a solution to this other than migrating somewhere else. Also, I'm pretty sure climate scientists--for all their speculation, bias, and posturing--have forgotten more about the history of the subject than anyone on this thread will ever know. Except GIC, I never assume to assume what he knows...

Certainly not, more people need to attend college courses on geoscience and learn about our planet and what we are doing to it.More people also need to read books like "The Long Emergency" rather than buying into the filth that Fox News decides to feed them.

'Physics, statistical analysis and computer simulations' are things I do on a regular basis and the subject of academic articles I regularly read. So in stead of telling me to go back to school...how about just giving me the source code? Why is it such a big deal for a public university doing research using public grants to release their source code? I honestly can't even believe that these 'journals' allow them to publish without supplying it. Once they start acting like scientists, I might treat them like scientists, but for the time being I can only assume that the reason they don't release their source code is because it would not stand up to scrutiny.

Quote

Even listen to Patriarch Bartholomew and other figures who speak out about our environment.

This year, we barely had a winter, we have barely had a spring so far (it's been more like summer).

Global climate change is a reality and even if part of it is natural, we are undoubtably making it worse.

Only those who listen to Faux News and refuse to pick up a real science book would be so foolish to deny that we are harming our environment severely. It's all a part of the absolute idiocy of the American mindset. We're fat, selfish, stupid, gluttonous, arrogant and willfully ignorant. We believe it's our duty to live as we want and to force our lifestyle on others like we are the adherents of a religion of hedonism trying to convert infidels to our gluttony.

Europe gets it, while Western Europe is morally and religiously compromised, they are still thinking clearly when it comes to science and our environment. They live far more sustainable lifestyles than we do, they didn't destroy their sustainable cities, and yet they still manage to fight to lower their impact on the environment.

The future will look at us in scorn and with hatred because of how ignorant we've chosen to be about our role as God-ordained protectors and stewards of the world.

And my point is that until they start doing the science correctly, none of the rest of this even matters. If ruining the environment is what it takes to make people do good science, then so be it.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

1. That human activity causes global warming, as opposed to natural processes.2. That global warming is a bad thing. (Consider the explosion of wealth and culture after the MWP.)

We learned this week that the Medieval Warm Period was global, not just confined to the North Atlantic, proving the entire globe can warm and cool apart from human influence.

I think the panic over global warming is ignorance of history. The planet has been far hotter and far colder than it is now, even during mankind's existence. Why should we say that the climate of 1950 is the ideal that we must maintain at all costs?

Polluting groundwater and burning down rainforests is a lot bigger environmental concern to me than global warming.

I also live in the Midwest, and this winter was wonderful. I don't have to move to the tropics anymore.

That's my biggest concern, we know from paleoclimatology that we have been in a global 'ice age' for the past 50 million years or so and if past weather cycles are any clue (and there's no guarantee they are) we're also due to climb out of this ice age and enter a global warm period.

Now, this may all be coincidence and man may very well be responsible for the latest global warming, but if they want to introduce an extra variable into this equation (human activity) I do believe that they have a very heavy burden of proof. And while they have given indications their assumption might be right, the quality of their research still has a far ways to go before they meet that obligation.

The problem isn't that they're wrong, the problem is that quality of research is not good enough to expect a reasonable person to accept their hypothesis based on the research that has been done to date.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Certainly not, more people need to attend college courses on geoscience and learn about our planet and what we are doing to it.More people also need to read books like "The Long Emergency" rather than buying into the filth that Fox News decides to feed them.

Even listen to Patriarch Bartholomew and other figures who speak out about our environment.

This year, we barely had a winter, we have barely had a spring so far (it's been more like summer).

Global climate change is a reality and even if part of it is natural, we are undoubtably making it worse.

Only those who listen to Faux News and refuse to pick up a real science book would be so foolish to deny that we are harming our environment severely. It's all a part of the absolute idiocy of the American mindset. We're fat, selfish, stupid, gluttonous, arrogant and willfully ignorant. We believe it's our duty to live as we want and to force our lifestyle on others like we are the adherents of a religion of hedonism trying to convert infidels to our gluttony.

Europe gets it, while Western Europe is morally and religiously compromised, they are still thinking clearly when it comes to science and our environment. They live far more sustainable lifestyles than we do, they didn't destroy their sustainable cities, and yet they still manage to fight to lower their impact on the environment.

The future will look at us in scorn and with hatred because of how ignorant we've chosen to be about our role as God-ordained protectors and stewards of the world.

I knew from your previous postings that you are a person of certainties. I admire that trait. But, I've got to tell you: you are dead wrong in this instance. Not 60, 70, 80 or 90 per cent wrong, but 99 per cent wrong. You are spared that 1 percent by the fact that you apparently are a living and breathing human being.

And my point is that until they start doing the science correctly, none of the rest of this even matters. If ruining the environment is what it takes to make people do good science, then so be it.

It will take the severe alteration of our environment and the collapse of automobile, gluttonous world as we know it to make people actually believe what scientists already know...

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of idiots from older generations screwing over my generation by pretending the scientists and environmentalists are just crazy (or at worse, liars).My generation is getting absolutely screwed over and we are going to have to bear the burden of the mistakes that the idiots of the past are giving to us. We are going to have to spend our whole lives trying to reverse the selfish and ignorant decisions that the older generations have made.

If my generation doesn't try to fix the problems, then I fear that our children will not have a bright future...

There is no reasoning with idiots, and that is why we need to oppose retards like Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Obama, McCain, Bush etc...

Guess what, the automobile and gasoline age is coming to an end. America will probably not be the world's main superpower within my lifetime, and our country is headed for a very rough future because we live in an environment and society that we've built that has no value for sustainability and self-control.

Many of you are absolute hypocrites. On the one hand, you're Orthodox, and therefore I assume that you believe in self-control, denial of self and believe in controlling how much food you consume and how many material items you own and value. Yet on the other hand, you support the idiocy that is American culture and you support the lack of self control, individualistic and selfish society that we've built. You support the idea of consuming massive amounts of land and natural resources to build and live how we want to, and support the idea that there is nothing wrong with living in our society and living how we live.

Just look at movements like Occupy Wall Street, the support behind Ron Paul, and more... My generation is absolutely sick and tired of it, and we aren't going to put up with it anymore. I cannot wait till the older generations get old and begin retiring and leaving positions of power, because its time that the suburban loving, automobile-oriented, "American F*** Yeah", mass consuming generation gets the boot...

My generation believes in climate change whether yours does or not, and we are going to be the ones in power in the future, so you might as well accept that fact and quit screwing us over.

Whether you like it or not, we are going to take over and chances are, because your generation opposed environmentalism, self-control, sustainability, smart growth and real urbanism, your generation will be looked down upon by history and for generations to come.

Scientists at Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Research used physics, statistical analysis and computer simulations to link extreme rainfall and heat waves to global warming. The link between warming and storms was less clear.

"It is very likely that several of the unprecedented extremes of the past decade would not have occurred without anthropogenic global warming," said the study.

The past decade was probably the warmest globally for at least a millennium. Last year was the eleventh hottest on record, the World Meteorological Organization said on Friday.

I won't take a line either way on climate change/global warming. However, if you look at history, in the 1970s, extreme winter weather was leading people to speak of a coming ice age. I think it's irresponsible to link weather to climate. It's certainly not scientific. The two are different things.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of idiots from older generations screwing over my generation by pretending the scientists and environmentalists are just crazy (or at worse, liars).My generation is getting absolutely screwed over and we are going to have to bear the burden of the mistakes that the idiots of the past are giving to us. We are going to have to spend our whole lives trying to reverse the selfish and ignorant decisions that the older generations have made.

You should read this book, you'd probably get some peace of mind out of it...

I have listen to the scientists on BOTH sides of the debate though. The only thing I have really heard unanimously agreed upon is that Global warming will happen. Most believe it has indeed already started. My favorite comment was that Global warming is a natural cycle that will happen, and has already started. It has happened before on this planet and I don't think it was caused by cave men and their camp fires.

Granted he was being a tad bit sarcastic but does make a point. With that said I'm sure we can all agree that as a human race we have not been the stewards we should of this planet. Are we really causing global warming though?? IDK about that one.

Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of idiots from older generations screwing over my generation by pretending the scientists and environmentalists are just crazy (or at worse, liars).My generation is getting absolutely screwed over and we are going to have to bear the burden of the mistakes that the idiots of the past are giving to us. We are going to have to spend our whole lives trying to reverse the selfish and ignorant decisions that the older generations have made.

You should read this book, you'd probably get some peace of mind out of it...

And my point is that until they start doing the science correctly, none of the rest of this even matters. If ruining the environment is what it takes to make people do good science, then so be it.

It will take the severe alteration of our environment and the collapse of automobile, gluttonous world as we know it to make people actually believe what scientists already know...

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of idiots from older generations screwing over my generation by pretending the scientists and environmentalists are just crazy (or at worse, liars).My generation is getting absolutely screwed over and we are going to have to bear the burden of the mistakes that the idiots of the past are giving to us. We are going to have to spend our whole lives trying to reverse the selfish and ignorant decisions that the older generations have made.

If my generation doesn't try to fix the problems, then I fear that our children will not have a bright future...

There is no reasoning with idiots, and that is why we need to oppose retards like Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Obama, McCain, Bush etc...

Guess what, the automobile and gasoline age is coming to an end. America will probably not be the world's main superpower within my lifetime, and our country is headed for a very rough future because we live in an environment and society that we've built that has no value for sustainability and self-control.

Many of you are absolute hypocrites. On the one hand, you're Orthodox, and therefore I assume that you believe in self-control, denial of self and believe in controlling how much food you consume and how many material items you own and value. Yet on the other hand, you support the idiocy that is American culture and you support the lack of self control, individualistic and selfish society that we've built. You support the idea of consuming massive amounts of land and natural resources to build and live how we want to, and support the idea that there is nothing wrong with living in our society and living how we live.

Just look at movements like Occupy Wall Street, the support behind Ron Paul, and more... My generation is absolutely sick and tired of it, and we aren't going to put up with it anymore. I cannot wait till the older generations get old and begin retiring and leaving positions of power, because its time that the suburban loving, automobile-oriented, "American F*** Yeah", mass consuming generation gets the boot...

My generation believes in climate change whether yours does or not, and we are going to be the ones in power in the future, so you might as well accept that fact and quit screwing us over.

Whether you like it or not, we are going to take over and chances are, because your generation opposed environmentalism, self-control, sustainability, smart growth and real urbanism, your generation will be looked down upon by history and for generations to come.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of idiots from older generations screwing over my generation by pretending the scientists and environmentalists are just crazy (or at worse, liars).My generation is getting absolutely screwed over and we are going to have to bear the burden of the mistakes that the idiots of the past are giving to us. We are going to have to spend our whole lives trying to reverse the selfish and ignorant decisions that the older generations have made.

You should read this book, you'd probably get some peace of mind out of it...

You are kidding right?

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Also, for those scientists who oppose the idea of man-made climate change... Tell me, how are they any different from the so-called "engineers" and "architects" who believe that 9/11 was an inside job and the towers were a controlled demolition?

There are absolute idiots in every profession. I put those two in the same camp... Personally, the architects and engineers that claim 9/11 was a controlled demolition should immediately lose their licensure and be banned from practice.

The good news that some of the measures suggested by those who believe we can affect the climate are tied easily to other problems which are quite clearly delineated: water, air, noise pollution, etc.

We really don't need to engage in this ridiculous discussion where most are just completely ignorant as in most cases, not everyone can be expert in everything, and others use their sophistication to poke interesting looking holes into the straw man.

Plus, you will find per primus' post, that any American who finds themselves outside their measure on any topic and might have to admit they don't know what they are talking about will run immediately into the anti-intellectual position.

So find the "smaller" issues: pollution, crime, etc. which are addressed by the same solutions posited as those to the human activity driver aspect of climate change.

It works better.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2012, 04:15:55 PM by orthonorm »

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Also, for those scientists who oppose the idea of man-made climate change

Just the ones who deny it, or the ones that got busted lying about it?

Quote

Tell me, how are they any different from the so-called "engineers" and "architects" who believe that 9/11 was an inside job and the towers were a controlled demolition?

Real science I would imagine.

Quote

There are absolute idiots in every profession. I put those two in the same camp... Personally, the architects and engineers that claim 9/11 was a controlled demolition should immediately lose their licensure and be banned from practice

Well, I know I would not hire them to design my house.

Look, i for one am not denying climate change however I have to say that I just dont think that humanity is the main cause. Especially since there have been climate changes WAY before the automobile. Are we helping matters? Absolutely not. but to lay it solely at the feet of humanity is silly.

Quote

Plus, you will find per primus' post, that any American who finds themselves outside their measure on any topic and might have to admit they don't know what they are talking about will run immediately into the anti-intellectual position

My reaction was emotional to be sure. But really, insulting folks doesn't get too far. Especially when you look close enough, what you're attacking others on you might be guilty of some as well.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Not at all. I think it will give him some peace of mind. Whether Kuhn's philosophy of science is correct or not is entirely irrelevant. As it stands now I feel like he's gonna have a heart attack or something with all the worrying!

The good news that some of the measures suggested by those who believe we can affect the climate are tied easily to other problems which are quite clearly delineated: water, air, noise pollution, etc.

We really don't need to engage in this ridiculous discussion where most are just completely ignorant as in most cases, not everyone can be expert in everything, and others use their sophistication to poke interesting looking holes into the straw man.

Plus, you will find per primus' post, that any American who finds themselves outside their measure on any topic and might have to admit they don't know what they are talking about will run immediately into the anti-intellectual position.

So find the "smaller" issues: pollution, crime, etc. which are addressed by the same solutions posited as those to the human activity driver aspect of climate change.

It works better.

I was actually about to mention those...

Our way of life isn't just wrong because we are (potentially) changing our climate, but because we are definitely causing a huge amount of air pollution and water pollution.

We are highly individualistic and anti-social, we love isolating ourselves from one another, and this is spreading into our homes.

We are building infrastructure that we cannot afford to maintain, we have so many sewers, roads, electrical lines and more that are spread over hundreds of square miles per city, and at such a low density that we cannot (literally) afford to maintain them.

The fact that our diet is so bad and that we drive everywhere rather than walking has contributed to a decline in health of Americans, we have literally become fat and we are clogging our arteries. Healthcare costs so much more both because of a faulty system, but also because Americans are terribly unhealthy compared to other parts of the world like Europe.

We have built out so much that we aren't just increasing pollution, but we've turned our cities into gigantic heat islands, effecting the climate itself. I cannot tell you how many times I've watched tornadic storms break up as they hit the Kansas City Metropolitan Area due to the increase in temperature, only to reappear once they move past and to a less dense side of the city. Also, because of our air pollution, our storms are also producing a lot of acid rain, which is both unhealthy, and increases maintenance cost on everything we build.

Our food production has become so focused on factories and the average distance food travels to your shopping center is about 1,000 miles. This is going to end with higher gas prices because most travels by freight trucks (semis). Therefore we are going to need to grow, produce and sell food locally.

Natural habitats were destroyed and are still being destroyed by the sprawl of our cities. We have taken land which once held lots of wildlife and farmland, and have turned it into gigantic paved parking lots, roads and miles of houses and big box stores. We may have trees, bushes and flowers, but we are no longer truly close to nature, and even if we move to the edge of the city, it won't be rural for long.

So if climate change isn't enough to motivate someone to seek after change in the American way of life, all of those reasons should be more than enough for people to desire change.

Let me be blunt with you. The hyper-reactionary emotionalism you've shown on this thread and on this forum in general has totally destroyed any credibility you might have had previously. You really need to cool it right now.

I was actually about to mention those... Our way of life isn't just wrong because we are (potentially) changing our climate, but because we are definitely causing a huge amount of air pollution and water pollution. We are highly individualistic and anti-social, we love isolating ourselves from one another, and this is spreading into our homes. We are building infrastructure that we cannot afford to maintain, we have so many sewers, roads, electrical lines and more that are spread over hundreds of square miles per city, and at such a low density that we cannot (literally) afford to maintain them. The fact that our diet is so bad and that we drive everywhere rather than walking has contributed to a decline in health of Americans, we have literally become fat and we are clogging our arteries. Healthcare costs so much more both because of a faulty system, but also because Americans are terribly unhealthy compared to other parts of the world like Europe.We have built out so much that we aren't just increasing pollution, but we've turned our cities into gigantic heat islands, effecting the climate itself. I cannot tell you how many times I've watched tornadic storms break up as they hit the Kansas City Metropolitan Area due to the increase in temperature, only to reappear once they move past and to a less dense side of the city. Also, because of our air pollution, our storms are also producing a lot of acid rain, which is both unhealthy, and increases maintenance cost on everything we build.Our food production has become so focused on factories and the average distance food travels to your shopping center is about 1,000 miles. This is going to end with higher gas prices because most travels by freight trucks (semis). Therefore we are going to need to grow, produce and sell food locally.Natural habitats were destroyed and are still being destroyed by the sprawl of our cities. We have taken land which once held lots of wildlife and farmland, and have turned it into gigantic paved parking lots, roads and miles of houses and big box stores. We may have trees, bushes and flowers, but we are no longer truly close to nature, and even if we move to the edge of the city, it won't be rural for long.Our cities will no longer be able to afford maintenance on their infrastructure. There is so much infrastructure that needs to be maintained, and due to our low density style of living, we simply won't be able to afford to keep it all at an acceptable level of maintenance.

So if climate change isn't enough to motivate someone to seek after change in the American way of life, all of those reasons should be more than enough for people to desire change

Now that the firebolts have ceased, I can agree with most of what you said.

I think part of the problem is, this beast has been created, and in order to survive, you gotta participate in it. I wish it wasn't like that, and if everything goes well during the next lottery drawing, I wont participate in it anymore. Until then, I dont see any way to stop it.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Let me be blunt with you. The hyper-reactionary emotionalism you've shown on this thread and on this forum in general totally destroys any credibility you might have had previously.

Your point being? This is just a forum, I don't really care how much credibility I have. There are 300 million Americans out there, I'm not out to convince every one of them, nor to convince you. If Americans choose not to believe, that is their own choice. But they will be forced into change by the consequences of their behavior and lifestyles.

So whether or not you choose to believe me or give me credibility is irrelevant, because the world is going to change anyway, no matter if we choose to believe it will or not.

I was actually about to mention those... Our way of life isn't just wrong because we are (potentially) changing our climate, but because we are definitely causing a huge amount of air pollution and water pollution. We are highly individualistic and anti-social, we love isolating ourselves from one another, and this is spreading into our homes. We are building infrastructure that we cannot afford to maintain, we have so many sewers, roads, electrical lines and more that are spread over hundreds of square miles per city, and at such a low density that we cannot (literally) afford to maintain them. The fact that our diet is so bad and that we drive everywhere rather than walking has contributed to a decline in health of Americans, we have literally become fat and we are clogging our arteries. Healthcare costs so much more both because of a faulty system, but also because Americans are terribly unhealthy compared to other parts of the world like Europe.We have built out so much that we aren't just increasing pollution, but we've turned our cities into gigantic heat islands, effecting the climate itself. I cannot tell you how many times I've watched tornadic storms break up as they hit the Kansas City Metropolitan Area due to the increase in temperature, only to reappear once they move past and to a less dense side of the city. Also, because of our air pollution, our storms are also producing a lot of acid rain, which is both unhealthy, and increases maintenance cost on everything we build.Our food production has become so focused on factories and the average distance food travels to your shopping center is about 1,000 miles. This is going to end with higher gas prices because most travels by freight trucks (semis). Therefore we are going to need to grow, produce and sell food locally.Natural habitats were destroyed and are still being destroyed by the sprawl of our cities. We have taken land which once held lots of wildlife and farmland, and have turned it into gigantic paved parking lots, roads and miles of houses and big box stores. We may have trees, bushes and flowers, but we are no longer truly close to nature, and even if we move to the edge of the city, it won't be rural for long.Our cities will no longer be able to afford maintenance on their infrastructure. There is so much infrastructure that needs to be maintained, and due to our low density style of living, we simply won't be able to afford to keep it all at an acceptable level of maintenance.

So if climate change isn't enough to motivate someone to seek after change in the American way of life, all of those reasons should be more than enough for people to desire change

Now that the firebolts have ceased, I can agree with most of what you said.

I think part of the problem is, this beast has been created, and in order to survive, you gotta participate in it. I wish it wasn't like that, and if everything goes well during the next lottery drawing, I wont participate in it anymore. Until then, I dont see any way to stop it.

PP

Not exactly, my point is that we need to euthanize the beast peacefully before it suffers an agonizing self-destructive death.

We can either make changes to make the transition easier and less painful. Or we can refuse to make changes and deal with the catastrophe that is coming... Since I'm going to be one of those living in that future, I don't want to have to deal with a collapse...

If we stay ahead of the game, we will be in good shape. But right now, we are behind and we are going to fall behind the rest of the world, and we will probably fall pretty hard.

Let me be blunt with you. The hyper-reactionary emotionalism you've shown on this thread and on this forum in general totally destroys any credibility you might have had previously.

Your point being?

My point being that when you start calling us hypocrites, you show that you're dangerously close to the kind of ad hominem that will get you disciplined on this forum. Not that I'm threatening you, even though I am speaking from my experience as one of this forum's moderators, but you do need to be aware that you often let your rage against the machine carry you away into zones that you just don't want to enter. I hope merely that you will see how close you get at times to getting yourself into trouble with your inflamed rhetoric and how you need to strive to keep a much cooler head on your shoulders in such debates as this.

We are highly individualistic and anti-social, we love isolating ourselves from one another, and this is spreading into our homes.

Do we really love that? Who is this 'we' fellow who does? Most of the people that I know, who isolate themselves from others, have mental issues (usually anxiety disorders). They do not generally "love" doing so, but do so nonetheless.

Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice. Can you guess what it is?

And my point is that until they start doing the science correctly, none of the rest of this even matters. If ruining the environment is what it takes to make people do good science, then so be it.

It will take the severe alteration of our environment and the collapse of automobile, gluttonous world as we know it to make people actually believe what scientists already know...

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of idiots from older generations screwing over my generation by pretending the scientists and environmentalists are just crazy (or at worse, liars).My generation is getting absolutely screwed over and we are going to have to bear the burden of the mistakes that the idiots of the past are giving to us. We are going to have to spend our whole lives trying to reverse the selfish and ignorant decisions that the older generations have made.

If my generation doesn't try to fix the problems, then I fear that our children will not have a bright future...

There is no reasoning with idiots, and that is why we need to oppose retards like Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Obama, McCain, Bush etc...

Guess what, the automobile and gasoline age is coming to an end. America will probably not be the world's main superpower within my lifetime, and our country is headed for a very rough future because we live in an environment and society that we've built that has no value for sustainability and self-control.

Many of you are absolute hypocrites. On the one hand, you're Orthodox, and therefore I assume that you believe in self-control, denial of self and believe in controlling how much food you consume and how many material items you own and value. Yet on the other hand, you support the idiocy that is American culture and you support the lack of self control, individualistic and selfish society that we've built. You support the idea of consuming massive amounts of land and natural resources to build and live how we want to, and support the idea that there is nothing wrong with living in our society and living how we live.

Just look at movements like Occupy Wall Street, the support behind Ron Paul, and more... My generation is absolutely sick and tired of it, and we aren't going to put up with it anymore. I cannot wait till the older generations get old and begin retiring and leaving positions of power, because its time that the suburban loving, automobile-oriented, "American F*** Yeah", mass consuming generation gets the boot...

My generation believes in climate change whether yours does or not, and we are going to be the ones in power in the future, so you might as well accept that fact and quit screwing us over.

Whether you like it or not, we are going to take over and chances are, because your generation opposed environmentalism, self-control, sustainability, smart growth and real urbanism, your generation will be looked down upon by history and for generations to come.

Dude, if it's so obvious then prove it to me. This is science, not religion...it doesn't matter what you believe and your feelings are irrelevant. Now you posed a scientific hypothesis as a fact, so I'm going to hold you to the standards of the scientific method. So stop referencing theological arguments and bibliographies and let's focus on the actual claim you made. If this is a scientific fact then give me the scientific evidence that man is the cause of global warming...that's all I ask, real scientific evidence for a supposed scientific fact. I wouldn't claim that the earth went around the sun or that atoms existed if I couldn't personally defend that position with scientific evidence and I believe that is a fair standard for anyone claiming the authority of science.

Oh, and I'm maybe 10 years older than you, so why don't you come down off that horse?

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

That's my biggest concern, we know from paleoclimatology that we have been in a global 'ice age' for the past 50 million years or so and if past weather cycles are any clue (and there's no guarantee they are) we're also due to climb out of this ice age and enter a global warm period.

Good point. I wasn't even thinking necessarily on those long of time scales, but you're right.

The climate is not static; it never has been, and it never will be. That being the case, being good organisms we should adapt to it, and not panic ourselves over global and universal systems over which we have no control.

And yes, there is sheer panic among members of the younger generation. Awhile back I was shocked to see videos of young, grade-school-aged children absolutely weeping in panic over global warming. I don't remember why the video was recorded, but the children had apparently just been propagandized by their teachers, and it seemed they believed they and their families were going to die at any moment if something wasn't done. Ridiculous. (But it's a classic tactic: brainwash the children and they'll pester their parents to change.)

I would like someone to tell me why the global average temperature of, say, 1950 is the ideal that should be preserved now and ever and unto ages of ages. There are many upsides to a global temperature increase, yet it seems that whenever it goes above some arbitrary value from the recent past, it is time to panic.

One other thing — the warm winter this year had nothing to do with global warming. It had everything to do with the jetstream staying farther north than usual, because the area of high air pressure over Greenland did not form in late fall as it usually does. It happens sometimes, especially in successive La Niña years. All the snow we normally get down here stayed up in Alaska, where snow records were broken.

That's my biggest concern, we know from paleoclimatology that we have been in a global 'ice age' for the past 50 million years or so and if past weather cycles are any clue (and there's no guarantee they are) we're also due to climb out of this ice age and enter a global warm period.

Good point. I wasn't even thinking necessarily on those long of time scales, but you're right.

The climate is not static; it never has been, and it never will be. That being the case, being good organisms we should adapt to it, and not panic ourselves over global and universal systems over which we have no control.

And yes, there is sheer panic among members of the younger generation. Awhile back I was shocked to see videos of young, grade-school-aged children absolutely weeping in panic over global warming. I don't remember why the video was recorded, but the children had apparently just been propagandized by their teachers, and it seemed they believed they and their families were going to die at any moment if something wasn't done. Ridiculous. (But it's a classic tactic: brainwash the children and they'll pester their parents to change.)

I would like someone to tell me why the global average temperature of, say, 1950 is the ideal that should be preserved now and ever and unto ages of ages. There are many upsides to a global temperature increase, yet it seems that whenever it goes above some arbitrary value from the recent past, it is time to panic.

One other thing — the warm winter this year had nothing to do with global warming. It had everything to do with the jetstream staying farther north than usual, because the area of high air pressure over Greenland did not form in late fall as it usually does. It happens sometimes, especially in successive La Niña years. All the snow we normally get down here stayed up in Alaska, where snow records were broken.

You raise another good point, even if man is causing global warming, is it really that bad, or, at least, would it be as bad as the economic damage we would cause trying (and probably failing) to prevent it? And if we're resolved to spend that obscene amount of money anyway, what's more productive, spending it on global warming or on other global problems. We can cut malaria rates in half, substantially reduce abject poverty, almost eliminate malnutrition globally, and prevent 30 million cases of aids a year for about half the annual cost of the Kyoto protocol, were it to be fully implemented. And what's the benefit that climatologists predict we will get for the obscene cost of the Kyoto Protocol? Maybe a 10 year delay in global warming. We just don't yet have the technology to do anything about global warming, regardless of the cause, in an efficient manner today. We may very well be able to manipulate our climate on that level in 100 years, but we really can't today and the economic cost of trying to do so would lead to an increase in the problems that we actually can make a large contribution to solving.

And who's to say that global warming will even be that bad, the warm period in the Middle Ages gave a huge boost to the Scandinavian peoples, it brought about their golden age. It will mean that northern latitudes will be more hospitable and agriculture can move north. Yes, there will be some areas that get negative effects, but will these offset the positive ones? I don't know that anyone has even tried to calculate that, but I'm guessing that global warming would provide substantial benefit for countries such as Canada, Russia, and the Scandinavian countries, not to mention the northern US states, especially Alaska. If we're really lucky it may even open up the northwest passage and access to the resources currently covered by the Arctic ice sheet. Sure, we may have to build up sea walls, but that could be a small price to pay for more habitable land and the northwest passage.

Identifying the problem is only the first step and I really don't believe they have accomplished that. The next step is economic prioritization, what problems make the most sense to tackle first economically speaking, which ones give us the best cost-benefit ratio, and global warming definitely doesn't make it to the top of that list.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

That's my biggest concern, we know from paleoclimatology that we have been in a global 'ice age' for the past 50 million years or so and if past weather cycles are any clue (and there's no guarantee they are) we're also due to climb out of this ice age and enter a global warm period.

Good point. I wasn't even thinking necessarily on those long of time scales, but you're right.

The climate is not static; it never has been, and it never will be. That being the case, being good organisms we should adapt to it, and not panic ourselves over global and universal systems over which we have no control.

And yes, there is sheer panic among members of the younger generation. Awhile back I was shocked to see videos of young, grade-school-aged children absolutely weeping in panic over global warming. I don't remember why the video was recorded, but the children had apparently just been propagandized by their teachers, and it seemed they believed they and their families were going to die at any moment if something wasn't done. Ridiculous. (But it's a classic tactic: brainwash the children and they'll pester their parents to change.)

I would like someone to tell me why the global average temperature of, say, 1950 is the ideal that should be preserved now and ever and unto ages of ages. There are many upsides to a global temperature increase, yet it seems that whenever it goes above some arbitrary value from the recent past, it is time to panic.

One other thing — the warm winter this year had nothing to do with global warming. It had everything to do with the jetstream staying farther north than usual, because the area of high air pressure over Greenland did not form in late fall as it usually does. It happens sometimes, especially in successive La Niña years. All the snow we normally get down here stayed up in Alaska, where snow records were broken.

You raise another good point, even if man is causing global warming, is it really that bad, or, at least, would it be as bad as the economic damage we would cause trying (and probably failing) to prevent it? And if we're resolved to spend that obscene amount of money anyway, what's more productive, spending it on global warming or on other global problems. We can cut malaria rates in half, substantially reduce abject poverty, almost eliminate malnutrition globally, and prevent 30 million cases of aids a year for about half the annual cost of the Kyoto protocol, were it to be fully implemented. And what's the benefit that climatologists predict we will get for the obscene cost of the Kyoto Protocol? Maybe a 10 year delay in global warming. We just don't yet have the technology to do anything about global warming, regardless of the cause, in an efficient manner today. We may very well be able to manipulate our climate on that level in 100 years, but we really can't today and the economic cost of trying to do so would lead to an increase in the problems that we actually can make a large contribution to solving.

And who's to say that global warming will even be that bad, the warm period in the Middle Ages gave a huge boost to the Scandinavian peoples, it brought about their golden age. It will mean that northern latitudes will be more hospitable and agriculture can move north. Yes, there will be some areas that get negative effects, but will these offset the positive ones? I don't know that anyone has even tried to calculate that, but I'm guessing that global warming would provide substantial benefit for countries such as Canada, Russia, and the Scandinavian countries, not to mention the northern US states, especially Alaska. If we're really lucky it may even open up the northwest passage and access to the resources currently covered by the Arctic ice sheet. Sure, we may have to build up sea walls, but that could be a small price to pay for more habitable land and the northwest passage.

Identifying the problem is only the first step and I really don't believe they have accomplished that. The next step is economic prioritization, what problems make the most sense to tackle first economically speaking, which ones give us the best cost-benefit ratio, and global warming definitely doesn't make it to the top of that list.

Actually, in the event of a global warming, the ice caps will melt, which will subsequently cool the North Atlantic, and disrupt the Gulf Stream, which provides a lot of the warmer weather for Europe (especially the UK and parts of Northern Europe). If that stream is disrupted, Europe, especially the northern portions of Europe will cool. We also have to realize that these parts of Europe are on pretty much the same latitude as Canada and Russia. It is the Gulf Stream that has kept these regions relatively warm compared to places like Canada and Russia. Once that's disrupted, those areas will become much less "habitable" than they are now, they will probably become more equivalent to Canada in their temperature.At the very worst, Western Europe would enter a mini-Ice Age, and the Eastern US would also suffer much colder weather than it already does.

Paradoxically, a global warming/heating will cause some areas of the planet to cool down.

Now, I am NOT getting this idea from the famous movie "The Day after Tomorrow", the movie inserts an actual scientific hypothesis into its "doomsday" scenario.

Also, if the warming gets bad enough, it will raise the water level worldwide. While a couple feet doesn't seem like a lot, that would lead to the flooding of many coastal cities which aren't built sufficiently above sea level. (think parts of Manhattan, New Orleans, the Mediterranean etc...)

So whether or not we are the sole cause of it, I would say we are contributing to it. But it is something that needs to be a serious concern.

Regarding New Orleans: Whose bright idea was it to build a city on a river delta in a hurricane zone, anyway?

The French?

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Regarding New Orleans: Whose bright idea was it to build a city on a river delta in a hurricane zone, anyway?

I ask the same question about the river towns along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers... At least in Missouri the French did a good job of locating their trading posts and forts on the cliffs, who the heck decided to build towns in the flood plain? lol

Of course, you could ask a similar question about Venice, which is gonna sink in the next few centuries, or Mexico City which is also sinking...

Regarding New Orleans: Whose bright idea was it to build a city on a river delta in a hurricane zone, anyway?

I ask the same question about the river towns along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers... At least in Missouri the French did a good job of locating their trading posts and forts on the cliffs, who the heck decided to build towns in the flood plain? lol

Of course, you could ask a similar question about Venice, which is gonna sink in the next few centuries, or Mexico City which is also sinking...

Mexico City? Dude, that city has an altitude of over one mile above sea level! It may be sinking due to seismic forces, but it's hardly in danger of inundation by sea water any time soon.

Regarding New Orleans: Whose bright idea was it to build a city on a river delta in a hurricane zone, anyway?

I ask the same question about the river towns along the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers... At least in Missouri the French did a good job of locating their trading posts and forts on the cliffs, who the heck decided to build towns in the flood plain? lol

Of course, you could ask a similar question about Venice, which is gonna sink in the next few centuries, or Mexico City which is also sinking...

Mexico City? Dude, that city has an altitude of over one mile above sea level! It may be sinking due to seismic forces, but it's hardly in danger of inundation by sea water any time soon.

Its sinking because its built almost entirely on land which was once the lake bed for a major lake. It was Tenochtitlan, capital of the Aztec Empire, which was built on an island, and they subsequently built outwards from that island over the lake, today the lake is no longer there, but the ground isn't stable and so a lot of the city is sinking slowly into the lake bed.

Artists rendering of Tenochtitlan:

Basically the areas with the canals around them are the pieces of land the Aztecs "built" over the lake so they could inhabit and farm more land around the protected island.

Today Mexico City encompasses pretty much what was once that entire lake.

You don't realize that it takes millions of years for major sea level changes to happen. Mere feet concerns us because it has immediate consequences.

So move inland.

I'm as inland as you can get... The point is that we are going to lose billions of dollars of investment on our shores. It might be due to global warming, it may be due to human pollution, who knows... But we are making the problem worse.

You have to understand that with environmental problems, we can't have a "just deal with it" attitude. Besides, that is very irresponsible. (though very American, sadly)

You don't realize that it takes millions of years for major sea level changes to happen. Mere feet concerns us because it has immediate consequences.

Ah, not so!

After the last ice age, sea levels rose over 100m in just 10,000 years.

So I ask: whereas sea levels have risen and fallen drastically (and not drastically) all throughout history, and whereas we are presently at a historic low point of sea levels, why should we be surprised that it's rising?

It's a little like having a freak winter that goes down to -50º for three weeks, then panicking when it rises to -47º.

And, aside from the fact that we build cities on coastlines, why does it matter? We build cities in risky places, and we should accept that eventually nature will do what it wants.

I mean, does anyone honestly think that, without manmade greenhouse gases, the seas would stay at their current levels forever and ever?

You have to understand that with environmental problems, we can't have a "just deal with it" attitude. Besides, that is very irresponsible. (though very American, sadly)

It's not the American way, it's nature's way. We are a tiny part of a much larger system. So like all organisms, we "just deal with it" (i.e. adapt). Or we can refuse to adapt and chase ghosts and transient theories about why nature is changing, just live on the coasts and drown as we curse the inevitable rising water, but that's not good for the species.

You don't realize that it takes millions of years for major sea level changes to happen. Mere feet concerns us because it has immediate consequences.

Ah, not so!

After the last ice age, sea levels rose over 100m in just 10,000 years.

So I ask: whereas sea levels have risen and fallen drastically (and not drastically) all throughout history, and whereas we are presently at a historic low point of sea levels, why should we be surprised that it's rising?

It's a little like having a freak winter that goes down to -50º for three weeks, then panicking when it rises to -47º.

And, aside from the fact that we build cities on coastlines, why does it matter? We build cities in risky places, and we should accept that eventually nature will do what it wants.

I mean, does anyone honestly think that, without manmade greenhouse gases, the seas would stay at their current levels forever and ever?

You have to understand that with environmental problems, we can't have a "just deal with it" attitude. Besides, that is very irresponsible. (though very American, sadly)

It's not the American way, it's nature's way. We are a tiny part of a much larger system. So like all organisms, we "just deal with it" (i.e. adapt). Or we can refuse to adapt and chase ghosts and transient theories about why nature is changing, just live on the coasts and drown as we curse the inevitable rising water, but that's not good for the species.

You do realize that tens of thousands of years is still a long time right? 10,000 is only how long civilization (as we know it) has existed. Prior to that we were Pre-Historic living in caves and like nomads.

So are you saying mankind has jack to do with the rising temperatures? Explain the ozone hole to me (which is now patching up thankfully)...

You don't realize that it takes millions of years for major sea level changes to happen. Mere feet concerns us because it has immediate consequences.

Ah, not so!

After the last ice age, sea levels rose over 100m in just 10,000 years.

So I ask: whereas sea levels have risen and fallen drastically (and not drastically) all throughout history, and whereas we are presently at a historic low point of sea levels, why should we be surprised that it's rising?

It's a little like having a freak winter that goes down to -50º for three weeks, then panicking when it rises to -47º.

And, aside from the fact that we build cities on coastlines, why does it matter? We build cities in risky places, and we should accept that eventually nature will do what it wants.

I mean, does anyone honestly think that, without manmade greenhouse gases, the seas would stay at their current levels forever and ever?

You have to understand that with environmental problems, we can't have a "just deal with it" attitude. Besides, that is very irresponsible. (though very American, sadly)

It's not the American way, it's nature's way. We are a tiny part of a much larger system. So like all organisms, we "just deal with it" (i.e. adapt). Or we can refuse to adapt and chase ghosts and transient theories about why nature is changing, just live on the coasts and drown as we curse the inevitable rising water, but that's not good for the species.

You do realize that tens of thousands of years is still a long time right? 10,000 is only how long civilization (as we know it) has existed. Prior to that we were Pre-Historic living in caves and like nomads.

So are you saying mankind has jack to do with the rising temperatures?

I don't think he's saying that. I think what he's saying is that the climate change we're causing or helping cause (assuming we have any influence on climate at all) pales in comparison to the changes in climate we've seen in the historic record and that you therefore need to grasp a much larger historical perspective than just the last 50-100 years.

You do realize that tens of thousands of years is still a long time right? 10,000 is only how long civilization (as we know it) has existed. Prior to that we were Pre-Historic living in caves and like nomads.

But if you look at an average rate, 100m in 10,000 years is 1cm per year. Compared to the last century or so:

Which says 2mm/year on average. We are freaking out about sea levels rising at 20% the rate they have in geologically recent times. (and with zero pollution to boot)

What I'm saying is that the modern warming, whatever the cause, is insignificant considering the changes humans have survived and thrived under. So again, why is this bad?

And I still would like to know why we define an artificial ideal at X temperature and Y sea level, when climate and sea levels change all the time, and drastically at that. Who are we to say what it should be, aside from the normal human dislike of change?

Quote

So are you saying mankind has jack to do with the rising temperatures? Explain the ozone hole to me (which is now patching up thankfully)...

I would say, as Peter accurately surmised, that it makes no difference. People need to acknowledge there are larger forces at work (such as the sun, whose output is not constant either, and probably many things we do not understand). Any impact we may have is insignificant among all these other systems.

As GiC said earlier, would enacting all these countermeasures do more harm than good? Probably, because we do not know if it will do any good. If the sun is going through a hot phase, or of sea floor building is raising ocean levels, we could go back to the caveman days and the earth would still be changing.

I really do not understand by folks are using facts in this pointless debate with Devin. He has made up his mind and nothing that anybody says will disturb his adolescent certitudes. I hasten to point out that I am referring to his age (23) that falls scientifically in the adolescence age group. I am not in any way suggesting that his views are juvenile, childish or sophomoric.

I really do not understand by folks are using facts in this pointless debate with Devin. He has made up his mind and nothing that anybody says will disturb his adolescent certitudes. I hasten to point out that I am referring to his age (23) that falls scientifically in the adolescence age group. I am not in any way suggesting that his views are juvenile, childish or sophomoric.

I would honestly like to know how many of you have actually taken college courses on the subject. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means. I know far more about the built environment and harms it causes when done poorly than I do about the environment. But I would much rather trust my professor (who worked for NASA and was almost part of the group that went with the Columbia) than I would most of you.

I really do not understand by folks are using facts in this pointless debate with Devin. He has made up his mind and nothing that anybody says will disturb his adolescent certitudes. I hasten to point out that I am referring to his age (23) that falls scientifically in the adolescence age group. I am not in any way suggesting that his views are juvenile, childish or sophomoric.

I would honestly like to know how many of you have actually taken college courses on the subject. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means. I know far more about the built environment and harms it causes when done poorly than I do about the environment. But I would much rather trust my professor (who worked for NASA and was almost part of the group that went with the Columbia) than I would most of you.

Okay. Maybe you should go back to the college that gave you your degree and ask for a complete refund, for it seems they didn't teach you how to think for yourself.

I really do not understand by folks are using facts in this pointless debate with Devin. He has made up his mind and nothing that anybody says will disturb his adolescent certitudes. I hasten to point out that I am referring to his age (23) that falls scientifically in the adolescence age group. I am not in any way suggesting that his views are juvenile, childish or sophomoric.

I would honestly like to know how many of you have actually taken college courses on the subject. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means. I know far more about the built environment and harms it causes when done poorly than I do about the environment. But I would much rather trust my professor (who worked for NASA and was almost part of the group that went with the Columbia) than I would most of you.

Sounds like the problem here is not your professor but you. There are many respectable scientists who would not agree with your professor and yet you seem to have bought only one side of the argument. Let me be more specific, you argue less like a student and more like a zealous member of a religious cult. I think you have been brainwashed but I think you welcomed it. So much for the scientific approach and temperament.

I really do not understand by folks are using facts in this pointless debate with Devin. He has made up his mind and nothing that anybody says will disturb his adolescent certitudes. I hasten to point out that I am referring to his age (23) that falls scientifically in the adolescence age group. I am not in any way suggesting that his views are juvenile, childish or sophomoric.

I would honestly like to know how many of you have actually taken college courses on the subject. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means. I know far more about the built environment and harms it causes when done poorly than I do about the environment. But I would much rather trust my professor (who worked for NASA and was almost part of the group that went with the Columbia) than I would most of you.

Okay. Maybe you should go back to the college that gave you your degree and ask for a complete refund, for it seems they didn't teach you how to think for yourself.

Why do I need to think for myself? I have the Church to tell me what to believe on most important things. I have the Fathers to tell me and guide me on everything else. I have scholars, intellectuals and professionals to tell me the facts we know.

At least I'm not buying into the bull that a bunch of godless deists and atheists decided to conjure up in the so-called "Enlightenment". That is the worst era to ever occur on the face of this earth. I don't buy into the new-age "enlightenment" style "Free-Thinking".

The 'Enlightenment" era was full of evil ideas and godless people, especially once we reached the creation of the United States and the godless deists that created it like Franklin and Jefferson.

We were far better off when the government and the church would burn the books and writings of heretics and exile them outside of the nations, banning them from ever returning to mislead people.

At least I'm not buying into the bull that a bunch of godless deists and atheists decided to conjure up in the so-called "Enlightenment". That is the worst era to ever occur on the face of this earth. I don't buy into the new-age "enlightenment" style "Free-Thinking".

The 'Enlightenment" era was full of evil ideas and godless people, especially once we reached the creation of the United States and the godless deists that created it like Franklin and Jefferson.

We were far better off when the government and the church would burn the books and writings of heretics and exile them outside of the nations, banning them from ever returning to mislead people.

Are you high?

Like right now. High. There is something funny smelling about your clothes.

At least I'm not buying into the bull that a bunch of godless deists and atheists decided to conjure up in the so-called "Enlightenment". That is the worst era to ever occur on the face of this earth. I don't buy into the new-age "enlightenment" style "Free-Thinking".

The 'Enlightenment" era was full of evil ideas and godless people, especially once we reached the creation of the United States and the godless deists that created it like Franklin and Jefferson.

We were far better off when the government and the church would burn the books and writings of heretics and exile them outside of the nations, banning them from ever returning to mislead people.

Are you high?

Like right now. High. There is something funny smelling about your clothes.

We were far better off when the government and the church would burn the books and writings of heretics and exile them outside of the nations, banning them from ever returning to mislead people.

Who will decide which books to burn? Perhaps we could put Rick Santorum in charge, or would Nancy Pelosi be better?

A democracy isn't a Christian-style of government. A Christian style of government requires a top-down administration, that means that it needs to have an Emperor, a King, a Queen or some other Monarch.The Church would be the one to burn the books, and the state would be the one to exile the heretic.

A democracy isn't a Christian-style of government. A Christian style of government requires a top-down administration, that means that it needs to have an Emperor, a King, a Queen or some other Monarch.

Is this written down somewhere in the Bible or in a Church council, that this is the only Christian style of government?

You don't realize that it takes millions of years for major sea level changes to happen. Mere feet concerns us because it has immediate consequences.

Ah, not so!

After the last ice age, sea levels rose over 100m in just 10,000 years.

So I ask: whereas sea levels have risen and fallen drastically (and not drastically) all throughout history, and whereas we are presently at a historic low point of sea levels, why should we be surprised that it's rising?

It's a little like having a freak winter that goes down to -50º for three weeks, then panicking when it rises to -47º.

And, aside from the fact that we build cities on coastlines, why does it matter? We build cities in risky places, and we should accept that eventually nature will do what it wants.

I mean, does anyone honestly think that, without manmade greenhouse gases, the seas would stay at their current levels forever and ever?

You have to understand that with environmental problems, we can't have a "just deal with it" attitude. Besides, that is very irresponsible. (though very American, sadly)

It's not the American way, it's nature's way. We are a tiny part of a much larger system. So like all organisms, we "just deal with it" (i.e. adapt). Or we can refuse to adapt and chase ghosts and transient theories about why nature is changing, just live on the coasts and drown as we curse the inevitable rising water, but that's not good for the species.

You do realize that tens of thousands of years is still a long time right? 10,000 is only how long civilization (as we know it) has existed. Prior to that we were Pre-Historic living in caves and like nomads.

So are you saying mankind has jack to do with the rising temperatures? Explain the ozone hole to me (which is now patching up thankfully)...

I think one point is that if primitive man could find a way to adapt to the weather (which was more due to migration than climate change...but still...), shouldn't we be able to with all our fancy toys and modern know-how? I mean, if someone with nothing but a spear and animal skins can manage to thrive above the article circle, why couldn't we figure out how to live in a different environment. And the climatologists keep saying that no matter what we do, it won't be enough, much of the damage is already done...so why focus on stopping something we can't stop? Why not just work on dealing with the implications.

And getting to the implications, what exactly do you think the implications will be. First you were staying that we would have to contend with rising sea levels, then you said that the polar regions would get colder and it would only warm around the equator. Wouldn't that mean more ice on the poles and receding sea levels? And why have I continuously heard that the effect is going to be magnified in the polar regions, that's supposedly why all the ice caps are going to melt? Either we get new warm locations at northern latitudes to build cities and agriculture along with the opening of the northwest passage, or we get receding sea levels, the draining of swamps, more land area, and more coast line... sadly we can't have both, but which one do we get? And everyone's always talking about carbon causing global warming, but here you're asking about the hole in the ozone, so which one's the problem?

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

A democracy isn't a Christian-style of government. A Christian style of government requires a top-down administration, that means that it needs to have an Emperor, a King, a Queen or some other Monarch.

Is this written down somewhere in the Bible or in a Church council, that this is the only Christian style of government?

We don't believe in Sola Scriptura nor Sola Concilium...

But the only style of government in the Bible ordained by God is/was a monarchy. The only Orthodox nations were monarchies/empires.

Democracy, at least American democracy, comes from deists and non-Christians. It cannot be "Christian"...

You don't realize that it takes millions of years for major sea level changes to happen. Mere feet concerns us because it has immediate consequences.

Ah, not so!

After the last ice age, sea levels rose over 100m in just 10,000 years.

So I ask: whereas sea levels have risen and fallen drastically (and not drastically) all throughout history, and whereas we are presently at a historic low point of sea levels, why should we be surprised that it's rising?

It's a little like having a freak winter that goes down to -50º for three weeks, then panicking when it rises to -47º.

And, aside from the fact that we build cities on coastlines, why does it matter? We build cities in risky places, and we should accept that eventually nature will do what it wants.

I mean, does anyone honestly think that, without manmade greenhouse gases, the seas would stay at their current levels forever and ever?

You have to understand that with environmental problems, we can't have a "just deal with it" attitude. Besides, that is very irresponsible. (though very American, sadly)

It's not the American way, it's nature's way. We are a tiny part of a much larger system. So like all organisms, we "just deal with it" (i.e. adapt). Or we can refuse to adapt and chase ghosts and transient theories about why nature is changing, just live on the coasts and drown as we curse the inevitable rising water, but that's not good for the species.

You do realize that tens of thousands of years is still a long time right? 10,000 is only how long civilization (as we know it) has existed. Prior to that we were Pre-Historic living in caves and like nomads.

So are you saying mankind has jack to do with the rising temperatures? Explain the ozone hole to me (which is now patching up thankfully)...

I think one point is that if primitive man could find a way to adapt to the weather (which was more due to migration than climate change...but still...), shouldn't we be able to with all our fancy toys and modern know-how? I mean, if someone with nothing but a spear and animal skins can manage to thrive above the article circle, why couldn't we figure out how to live in a different environment. And the climatologists keep saying that no matter what we do, it won't be enough, much of the damage is already done...so why focus on stopping something we can't stop? Why not just work on dealing with the implications.

And getting to the implications, what exactly do you think the implications will be. First you were staying that we would have to contend with rising sea levels, then you said that the polar regions would get colder and it would only warm around the equator. Wouldn't that mean more ice on the poles and receding sea levels? And why have I continuously heard that the effect is going to be magnified in the polar regions, that's supposedly why all the ice caps are going to melt? Either we get new warm locations at northern latitudes to build cities and agriculture along with the opening of the northwest passage, or we get receding sea levels, the draining of swamps, more land area, and more coast line... sadly we can't have both, but which one do we get? And everyone's always talking about carbon causing global warming, but here you're asking about the hole in the ozone, so which one's the problem?

Where did I say that? All I mentioned was the disruption of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic which would cause a cooling of Western and Northern Europe.

That bulge up in Europe is due to the Gulf Stream from the Gulf of Mexico. If that is disrupted from the glacial melting, then Europe will cool.

According to its constitution, it's secular. To be Orthodox, Orthodoxy needs to be the official state religion and the only religion supported by the state. The Church and the State also need to work together in tandem.

I really do not understand by folks are using facts in this pointless debate with Devin. He has made up his mind and nothing that anybody says will disturb his adolescent certitudes. I hasten to point out that I am referring to his age (23) that falls scientifically in the adolescence age group. I am not in any way suggesting that his views are juvenile, childish or sophomoric.

Really? I didn't realize he was even close to being that old. That makes his argument about this being important to his generation even more absurd. I was starting to feel bad for picking on him, but not anymore.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Ah, I think we've gotten to the heart of the problem here. Don't worry, it's the first step to recovery. Let's start with this, next time your professor makes an unsubstantiated point, ask him for the data, ask him to walk you guys through the model. I know in math and physicists, professors quite appreciate questions like this, it demonstrates that the student is starting to grasp the subject and is thinking about it properly. They also know it's a fair question, since it would be absurd for you to accept something just because they said it. I wonder if your professor would respond as favorably as mine did?

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

According to its constitution, it's secular. To be Orthodox, Orthodoxy needs to be the official state religion and the only religion supported by the state. The Church and the State also need to work together in tandem.

According to its constitution, it's secular. To be Orthodox, Orthodoxy needs to be the official state religion and the only religion supported by the state. The Church and the State also need to work together in tandem.

I really do not understand by folks are using facts in this pointless debate with Devin. He has made up his mind and nothing that anybody says will disturb his adolescent certitudes. I hasten to point out that I am referring to his age (23) that falls scientifically in the adolescence age group. I am not in any way suggesting that his views are juvenile, childish or sophomoric.

I would honestly like to know how many of you have actually taken college courses on the subject. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means. I know far more about the built environment and harms it causes when done poorly than I do about the environment. But I would much rather trust my professor (who worked for NASA and was almost part of the group that went with the Columbia) than I would most of you.

Was he the one who told you Mexico City was sinking due to rising sea levels?

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

According to its constitution, it's secular. To be Orthodox, Orthodoxy needs to be the official state religion and the only religion supported by the state. The Church and the State also need to work together in tandem.

The people certainly are, the government is not. Same for Greece and Russia.

If you want to know what an Orthodox govt looks like, look to the Roman and Russian Empires.

sometimes when noone is home i enjoy seperating m&m's into colour groups and pretending they're little villages of people with their own economic and social problems, and then i try to fix them through free trade agreements and other diplomatic measures

I really do not understand by folks are using facts in this pointless debate with Devin. He has made up his mind and nothing that anybody says will disturb his adolescent certitudes. I hasten to point out that I am referring to his age (23) that falls scientifically in the adolescence age group. I am not in any way suggesting that his views are juvenile, childish or sophomoric.

I would honestly like to know how many of you have actually taken college courses on the subject. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means. I know far more about the built environment and harms it causes when done poorly than I do about the environment. But I would much rather trust my professor (who worked for NASA and was almost part of the group that went with the Columbia) than I would most of you.

Okay. Maybe you should go back to the college that gave you your degree and ask for a complete refund, for it seems they didn't teach you how to think for yourself.

Why do I need to think for myself? I have the Church to tell me what to believe on most important things. I have the Fathers to tell me and guide me on everything else. I have scholars, intellectuals and professionals to tell me the facts we know.

Then ask God to take back the gift of reason he gave you. It was really quite silly of Him to give it to you.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

At least I'm not buying into the bull that a bunch of godless deists and atheists decided to conjure up in the so-called "Enlightenment". That is the worst era to ever occur on the face of this earth. I don't buy into the new-age "enlightenment" style "Free-Thinking".

The 'Enlightenment" era was full of evil ideas and godless people, especially once we reached the creation of the United States and the godless deists that created it like Franklin and Jefferson.

We were far better off when the government and the church would burn the books and writings of heretics and exile them outside of the nations, banning them from ever returning to mislead people.

Thought did not begin in the Enlightenment. The Holy Fathers were actually quite great thinkers.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

At least I'm not buying into the bull that a bunch of godless deists and atheists decided to conjure up in the so-called "Enlightenment". That is the worst era to ever occur on the face of this earth. I don't buy into the new-age "enlightenment" style "Free-Thinking".

The 'Enlightenment" era was full of evil ideas and godless people, especially once we reached the creation of the United States and the godless deists that created it like Franklin and Jefferson.

We were far better off when the government and the church would burn the books and writings of heretics and exile them outside of the nations, banning them from ever returning to mislead people.

Are you high?

Like right now. High. There is something funny smelling about your clothes.

Certainly not, I'm thinking clearly.

But you just said it wasn't necessary for you to think at all.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

I really do not understand by folks are using facts in this pointless debate with Devin. He has made up his mind and nothing that anybody says will disturb his adolescent certitudes. I hasten to point out that I am referring to his age (23) that falls scientifically in the adolescence age group. I am not in any way suggesting that his views are juvenile, childish or sophomoric.

I would honestly like to know how many of you have actually taken college courses on the subject. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means. I know far more about the built environment and harms it causes when done poorly than I do about the environment. But I would much rather trust my professor (who worked for NASA and was almost part of the group that went with the Columbia) than I would most of you.

Was he the one who told you Mexico City was sinking due to rising sea levels?

I swear you don't read a thing I say... If you don't read what I say then don't reply!

I really do not understand by folks are using facts in this pointless debate with Devin. He has made up his mind and nothing that anybody says will disturb his adolescent certitudes. I hasten to point out that I am referring to his age (23) that falls scientifically in the adolescence age group. I am not in any way suggesting that his views are juvenile, childish or sophomoric.

I would honestly like to know how many of you have actually taken college courses on the subject. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means. I know far more about the built environment and harms it causes when done poorly than I do about the environment. But I would much rather trust my professor (who worked for NASA and was almost part of the group that went with the Columbia) than I would most of you.

Was he the one who told you Mexico City was sinking due to rising sea levels?

I swear you don't read a thing I say... If you don't read what I say then don't reply!

I have read what you wrote. I wonder why you write it.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

A democracy isn't a Christian-style of government. A Christian style of government requires a top-down administration, that means that it needs to have an Emperor, a King, a Queen or some other Monarch.

Is this written down somewhere in the Bible or in a Church council, that this is the only Christian style of government?

We don't believe in Sola Scriptura nor Sola Concilium...

But the only style of government in the Bible ordained by God is/was a monarchy.

Really? Because I seem to recall God trying to convince the Israelites that a king would be a bad idea.

Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice. Can you guess what it is?

I really do not understand by folks are using facts in this pointless debate with Devin. He has made up his mind and nothing that anybody says will disturb his adolescent certitudes. I hasten to point out that I am referring to his age (23) that falls scientifically in the adolescence age group. I am not in any way suggesting that his views are juvenile, childish or sophomoric.

I would honestly like to know how many of you have actually taken college courses on the subject. I'm not saying I'm an expert by any means. I know far more about the built environment and harms it causes when done poorly than I do about the environment. But I would much rather trust my professor (who worked for NASA and was almost part of the group that went with the Columbia) than I would most of you.

Okay. Maybe you should go back to the college that gave you your degree and ask for a complete refund, for it seems they didn't teach you how to think for yourself.

Why do I need to think for myself? I have the Church to tell me what to believe on most important things. I have the Fathers to tell me and guide me on everything else. I have scholars, intellectuals and professionals to tell me the facts we know.

But you don't appear able to distinguish one scholar from another. Not all scholars, intellectuals, or professionals will tell you the truth.

'Physics, statistical analysis and computer simulations' are things I do on a regular basis and the subject of academic articles I regularly read. So in stead of telling me to go back to school...how about just giving me the source code? Why is it such a big deal for a public university doing research using public grants to release their source code? I honestly can't even believe that these 'journals' allow them to publish without supplying it. Once they start acting like scientists, I might treat them like scientists, but for the time being I can only assume that the reason they don't release their source code is because it would not stand up to scrutiny.

And my point is that until they start doing the science correctly, none of the rest of this even matters. If ruining the environment is what it takes to make people do good science, then so be it.

Did you request this and were refused? What journals are we talking about? If it is a Nature or Science article, this is par for the course, and the only way to get the details needed is to write to the authors directly. This is why I dread having to base research projects on results published in these two journals. [Note: these journals publish cutting edge research that is supposedly made to be accessible to the general public, which also means that they contain insufficient methodological detail.]

I think one point is that if primitive man could find a way to adapt to the weather (which was more due to migration than climate change...but still...), shouldn't we be able to with all our fancy toys and modern know-how? I mean, if someone with nothing but a spear and animal skins can manage to thrive above the article circle, why couldn't we figure out how to live in a different environment. And the climatologists keep saying that no matter what we do, it won't be enough, much of the damage is already done...so why focus on stopping something we can't stop? Why not just work on dealing with the implications.

I have another question since this seems so unlike my perception of you (and I have been here since 2005). How does this play out in terms of nations with sovereign borders? Why do you think the UN is so concerned about global warming, otherwise? One might surmise that they believe that if you can slow the warming of the kettle, the lobster that lurks within will not jump out. I personally believe, on the other hand, that we would open our borders to those in need if the global warming scenario pans out.

All that "education" and "experience" and "working for major laboratories or universities." Stuff like that.

Don't express your sheeple tendencies, please. He's asking for quantification of the term 'leading'. Who are these people? What did they study? Why should we consider them leading?

Indeed. They shouldn't be afraid of being questioned. It's not like real scientists don't expect the Inquisition, Spanish or otherwise. Their jobs are all about answering questions and justifying their positions.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

It's very sad, but we are at nature's mercy in this life. It's sad like when there's a tsunami or a tornado. And humans are decent and we'll pull together to help. But people will die from nature and that's just the way it is. The way it always has been.

This seems to stem from our sheer terror about death, more than anything. It shows how spiritually deficient the world is today.

I'm going to assume you are talking about your post about the rising sea levels and the warming of the earth...

Personally, (now that I've calmed down) I don't necessarily ascribe to global warming, but rather climate change and our effects on climate.

I think it is undoubted that the Earth is warming naturally, and that cannot be stopped.

Yet we also must consider what part we've played in the state of our environment. Since 1800, the mean levels of Carbon Dioxide in our Atmosphere has risen 50 parts per million from 280 ppm to 330 ppm. While that doesn't seem like a lot, we must realize that prior to 1800, it was remaining relatively stable rising and dipping between 283 ppm and 279 ppm (excluding 1550-1750 where it dipped to 278/277 ppm). It basically has gone from relative stability to a sudden exponential growth with the onset of the industrial revolution.

There has to be consequences for the increase of Co2 levels within our atmosphere, and I would argue whatever the consequences are, it cannot be good.

I don't think there can be a bad side to making changes to lower our carbon emissions and our pollution. The only downside is higher cost, but you must pay more to be healthier and safer.

The rising temperatures of the earth have additional consequences. Even if it is almost completely natural, we still have to deal with it. Our cities are so sprawled out and paved over that we will suffer some extreme consequences from increased heat.Even if our temperature only gets relatively warmer, we must keep in mind that can turn to extremes in cities.

This nice little graphic shows the consequences of a "heat island", which many of our cities have become. American cities are far worse than other parts of the world simply because of how sprawled out we are...

So if you have temperatures of 90 degrees, that could be significantly higher in a sprawled out city.

Now, you could argue that we have air conditioning to deal with that problem. But air conditioning requires more energy. If our world is becoming hotter, we will inevitably need far more energy to provide conditioning to our buildings. Yet where do we get this energy?Most people would argue against Nuclear Fission, thinking its too unsafe. Others don't like coal because of how much pollution it causes. We've pretty much already reached our capacity for hydroelectric opportunities (which also can have devastating effects on the aquatic habitats). Wind power is also not universal and cannot be produced at the level we would need to provide for everyone. The same can also be said for solar, which also won't be effective in many places it would be needed because it requires a good amount of exposure to the sun, and cloudy days cut down on the energy produced. Our only hope for an electric energy source is Nuclear Fusion which is costing us a lot of money, and is taking a lot of time. If Nuclear Fusion has a breakthrough and we can contain and harness the energy, then we won't have to worry about consuming energy because of how efficient and virtually unlimited it is. (Fusion is what powers stars) Yet if we don't have a breakthrough within 40-50 years, we are in trouble.

Also, most of us rely on our automobiles for transportation. The problem with cars, is that they require a lot of infrastructure to operate. Roads, highways, parking etc... In addition, cars need an energy source to run. Oil, to be frank, is running out. People assume these oil fields we are finding are going to provide lots of oil for us, and they even call for drilling in places like ANWR. Yet what most people don't realize, is that while these oil fields are large, they still cannot sustain our consumption for a long period. As it stands right now, if the United States were to base its oil economy solely on domestic drilling, we would only have enough oil for about 5 to 10 years. This includes proven and projected reserves.The entire world's demand for oil is also increasing, and yet we believe we hit our peak oil production in about 2006. This means that from this point on, our supply of oil will diminish, while the demand increases. The world will have to produce the oil equivalent of a Saudi Arabia every 10 years.

As with electric energy sources, you may also say, well we can get alternatives to oil. Yet this also is problematic because oil has a very high ERoEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) which basically is the ratio of usable energy to the energy it costs to acquire it. Preferably the ratio would be 1.00, meaning that you get more energy than you invest. Oil has a very good ERoEI, and it is also pretty efficient.Yet other energy sources, like solar, wind power, etc... all don't have very good ERoEIs, and some of those also require oil for their production.There is nothing we know of that can replace oil. Even if we go for all options equally, we still won't be able to replace what oil currently does for us. What does this mean? This means that our growth, which is currently only sustained because of oil, is going to stop. Our growth will either stagnate or start to decline. Inevitably, our growth will have to become more sustainable.

Look at the population of the world, we are currently at 7 billion people, and this will nearly double by 2050. Our production of energy, our food production and more requires a reliance on cheap oil. Our population has been able to explode due to the convenience and efficiency of oil. Yet once oil starts fading away, we won't be able to sustain ourselves anymore. Think of it this way, before the Industrial Revolution, we alternated between being underweight and normal/adequate weight. But after the industrial revolution we have gone from normal weight, to overweight, to obese. Now, the food that has been sustaining our weight level is going to be gradually taken away, and it will cost us more. Therefore our "weight" is going to have to go down, we will have to shed our excess weight and become healthier and slimmer.

We also are destroying vast amounts of natural habitat to build communities that are not very sustainable and don't use the given space efficiently. In addition to this, countless square miles of forests and jungle are being destroyed simply to provide wood to build our buildings, which aren't even designed to last more than about 50 years. We are getting very low quality and low value for a very high cost (to the natural world).

What is probably going to happen in this next century?

-Oil Prices are going to keep rising--Additionally, people living out in the suburbs are not going to be able to afford to drive everywhere, and therefore will either move closer to mass transit and/or into the city. Some will stay and become farmers, but they won't be able to afford driving anymore.

-Suburbs will deteriorate--The outermost rings of our suburbs are going to become abandoned because people will leave them to be closer to shopping and their workplaces. Some of these will also become abandoned because many are of poor quality and poor construction, and to upkeep them will cost more.

-Cities will shrink--Cities will grow significantly in population, but they will contract and become more walkable. The outer edges will be abandoned and cities will not be able to afford maintenance on the outer infrastructure.--Cities (more specifically, urban cores) and transit hubs will boom in population and density.

-Food production localizes--Especially with rising gas prices, we won't be able to sustain the artificial processing of food and the shipment of food across the country. We will have to rely on nearby farms (regional and local) to provide us with food.

-Air and Water pollution will continue to increase--Before we change our lifestyles, pollution is going to get even worse, because most people won't change until circumstances force them to. Health of Americans will also get worse, not just due to our lack of physical activity, but also due to our diet and due to poor air quality due to pollution.

So if you don't believe in global warming as a human cause, we still need to make changes because circumstances are going to get tough in this coming century. If we start making changes now, we are going to make it easier on ourselves.But as it stands, Americans love their McMansions and they love their cars. I'm afraid that as Americans, we are going to be very stubborn and we will clutch onto these until they are pried from our hands while we lay suffering from shock and seizure.

Especially as Americans, we only care about the short-term. We want the quickest "fix" or the quickest satisfaction. We must remember that the Great Depression was preceded by the Roaring Twenties. This last Recession was preceded by another economic boom. Yet we weren't ever looking ahead to consequences of our actions. This is definitely one of problems we face now. We are building things and living in a lifestyle that has extreme long-term consequences, not to mention the terrible consequences to our society occurring now. I know so many people who say "we aren't running out of oil, they just found a huge reserve in _________", yet they don't understand how much oil we consume for not just cars, but for most of our products as well, and that a lot of reserves are low quality oil, or may cost more to drill than what we get back.

They also dismiss such talk as being from "Crazy environmentalists" or "treehuggers". Yet this is something that distinguished professionals are saying. While the environmentalists are crying about global warming, saving whales, and saving the trees; the professionals are telling us that the way we are living cannot be sustained for a long period, and we will have to change.

What should you do if you live in a large house, and constantly buy a lot of products, furniture and material items, yet you cannot afford these in the long term? Do you keep driving yourself into financial debt, or do you adjust your lifestyle and live within your means? We are currently living outside of what we can afford long-term and we are driving ourselves into debt (not financially), and yet we are also refusing to change our lifestyle and refuse to live within our means because of how hard such a change would be.

I'm going to assume you are talking about your post about the rising sea levels and the warming of the earth...

Personally, (now that I've calmed down) I don't necessarily ascribe to global warming, but rather climate change and our effects on climate.

I think it is undoubted that the Earth is warming naturally, and that cannot be stopped.

Yet we also must consider what part we've played in the state of our environment. Since 1800, the mean levels of Carbon Dioxide in our Atmosphere has risen 50 parts per million from 280 ppm to 330 ppm. While that doesn't seem like a lot, we must realize that prior to 1800, it was remaining relatively stable rising and dipping between 283 ppm and 279 ppm (excluding 1550-1750 where it dipped to 278/277 ppm). It basically has gone from relative stability to a sudden exponential growth with the onset of the industrial revolution.

There has to be consequences for the increase of Co2 levels within our atmosphere, and I would argue whatever the consequences are, it cannot be good.

I don't think there can be a bad side to making changes to lower our carbon emissions and our pollution. The only downside is higher cost, but you must pay more to be healthier and safer.

The rising temperatures of the earth have additional consequences. Even if it is almost completely natural, we still have to deal with it. Our cities are so sprawled out and paved over that we will suffer some extreme consequences from increased heat.Even if our temperature only gets relatively warmer, we must keep in mind that can turn to extremes in cities.

This nice little graphic shows the consequences of a "heat island", which many of our cities have become. American cities are far worse than other parts of the world simply because of how sprawled out we are...

So if you have temperatures of 90 degrees, that could be significantly higher in a sprawled out city.

Now, you could argue that we have air conditioning to deal with that problem. But air conditioning requires more energy. If our world is becoming hotter, we will inevitably need far more energy to provide conditioning to our buildings. Yet where do we get this energy?Most people would argue against Nuclear Fission, thinking its too unsafe. Others don't like coal because of how much pollution it causes. We've pretty much already reached our capacity for hydroelectric opportunities (which also can have devastating effects on the aquatic habitats). Wind power is also not universal and cannot be produced at the level we would need to provide for everyone. The same can also be said for solar, which also won't be effective in many places it would be needed because it requires a good amount of exposure to the sun, and cloudy days cut down on the energy produced. Our only hope for an electric energy source is Nuclear Fusion which is costing us a lot of money, and is taking a lot of time. If Nuclear Fusion has a breakthrough and we can contain and harness the energy, then we won't have to worry about consuming energy because of how efficient and virtually unlimited it is. (Fusion is what powers stars) Yet if we don't have a breakthrough within 40-50 years, we are in trouble.

Also, most of us rely on our automobiles for transportation. The problem with cars, is that they require a lot of infrastructure to operate. Roads, highways, parking etc... In addition, cars need an energy source to run. Oil, to be frank, is running out. People assume these oil fields we are finding are going to provide lots of oil for us, and they even call for drilling in places like ANWR. Yet what most people don't realize, is that while these oil fields are large, they still cannot sustain our consumption for a long period. As it stands right now, if the United States were to base its oil economy solely on domestic drilling, we would only have enough oil for about 5 to 10 years. This includes proven and projected reserves.The entire world's demand for oil is also increasing, and yet we believe we hit our peak oil production in about 2006. This means that from this point on, our supply of oil will diminish, while the demand increases. The world will have to produce the oil equivalent of a Saudi Arabia every 10 years.

As with electric energy sources, you may also say, well we can get alternatives to oil. Yet this also is problematic because oil has a very high ERoEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested) which basically is the ratio of usable energy to the energy it costs to acquire it. Preferably the ratio would be 1.00, meaning that you get more energy than you invest. Oil has a very good ERoEI, and it is also pretty efficient.Yet other energy sources, like solar, wind power, etc... all don't have very good ERoEIs, and some of those also require oil for their production.There is nothing we know of that can replace oil. Even if we go for all options equally, we still won't be able to replace what oil currently does for us. What does this mean? This means that our growth, which is currently only sustained because of oil, is going to stop. Our growth will either stagnate or start to decline. Inevitably, our growth will have to become more sustainable.

Look at the population of the world, we are currently at 7 billion people, and this will nearly double by 2050. Our production of energy, our food production and more requires a reliance on cheap oil. Our population has been able to explode due to the convenience and efficiency of oil. Yet once oil starts fading away, we won't be able to sustain ourselves anymore. Think of it this way, before the Industrial Revolution, we alternated between being underweight and normal/adequate weight. But after the industrial revolution we have gone from normal weight, to overweight, to obese. Now, the food that has been sustaining our weight level is going to be gradually taken away, and it will cost us more. Therefore our "weight" is going to have to go down, we will have to shed our excess weight and become healthier and slimmer.

We also are destroying vast amounts of natural habitat to build communities that are not very sustainable and don't use the given space efficiently. In addition to this, countless square miles of forests and jungle are being destroyed simply to provide wood to build our buildings, which aren't even designed to last more than about 50 years. We are getting very low quality and low value for a very high cost (to the natural world).

What is probably going to happen in this next century?

-Oil Prices are going to keep rising--Additionally, people living out in the suburbs are not going to be able to afford to drive everywhere, and therefore will either move closer to mass transit and/or into the city. Some will stay and become farmers, but they won't be able to afford driving anymore.

-Suburbs will deteriorate--The outermost rings of our suburbs are going to become abandoned because people will leave them to be closer to shopping and their workplaces. Some of these will also become abandoned because many are of poor quality and poor construction, and to upkeep them will cost more.

-Cities will shrink--Cities will grow significantly in population, but they will contract and become more walkable. The outer edges will be abandoned and cities will not be able to afford maintenance on the outer infrastructure.--Cities (more specifically, urban cores) and transit hubs will boom in population and density.

-Food production localizes--Especially with rising gas prices, we won't be able to sustain the artificial processing of food and the shipment of food across the country. We will have to rely on nearby farms (regional and local) to provide us with food.

-Air and Water pollution will continue to increase--Before we change our lifestyles, pollution is going to get even worse, because most people won't change until circumstances force them to. Health of Americans will also get worse, not just due to our lack of physical activity, but also due to our diet and due to poor air quality due to pollution.

So if you don't believe in global warming as a human cause, we still need to make changes because circumstances are going to get tough in this coming century. If we start making changes now, we are going to make it easier on ourselves.But as it stands, Americans love their McMansions and they love their cars. I'm afraid that as Americans, we are going to be very stubborn and we will clutch onto these until they are pried from our hands while we lay suffering from shock and seizure.

Especially as Americans, we only care about the short-term. We want the quickest "fix" or the quickest satisfaction. We must remember that the Great Depression was preceded by the Roaring Twenties. This last Recession was preceded by another economic boom. Yet we weren't ever looking ahead to consequences of our actions. This is definitely one of problems we face now. We are building things and living in a lifestyle that has extreme long-term consequences, not to mention the terrible consequences to our society occurring now. I know so many people who say "we aren't running out of oil, they just found a huge reserve in _________", yet they don't understand how much oil we consume for not just cars, but for most of our products as well, and that a lot of reserves are low quality oil, or may cost more to drill than what we get back.

They also dismiss such talk as being from "Crazy environmentalists" or "treehuggers". Yet this is something that distinguished professionals are saying. While the environmentalists are crying about global warming, saving whales, and saving the trees; the professionals are telling us that the way we are living cannot be sustained for a long period, and we will have to change.

What should you do if you live in a large house, and constantly buy a lot of products, furniture and material items, yet you cannot afford these in the long term? Do you keep driving yourself into financial debt, or do you adjust your lifestyle and live within your means? We are currently living outside of what we can afford long-term and we are driving ourselves into debt (not financially), and yet we are also refusing to change our lifestyle and refuse to live within our means because of how hard such a change would be.

You're making a lot of statements of fact you cannot possibly have learned from personal experience in the short time you've been alive. What sources are you citing for all this information?

'Physics, statistical analysis and computer simulations' are things I do on a regular basis and the subject of academic articles I regularly read. So in stead of telling me to go back to school...how about just giving me the source code? Why is it such a big deal for a public university doing research using public grants to release their source code? I honestly can't even believe that these 'journals' allow them to publish without supplying it. Once they start acting like scientists, I might treat them like scientists, but for the time being I can only assume that the reason they don't release their source code is because it would not stand up to scrutiny.

And my point is that until they start doing the science correctly, none of the rest of this even matters. If ruining the environment is what it takes to make people do good science, then so be it.

Did you request this and were refused? What journals are we talking about? If it is a Nature or Science article, this is par for the course, and the only way to get the details needed is to write to the authors directly. This is why I dread having to base research projects on results published in these two journals. [Note: these journals publish cutting edge research that is supposedly made to be accessible to the general public, which also means that they contain insufficient methodological detail.]

It's been an issue with their research in the past, they always seem to be happy to publish the results of their simulations, but never their source code...never the actual details of the simulation itself. There have been repeated requests that have been refused or gone unanswered, I'm not the only person who's uncomfortable with secrecy in science.

It tends to be the first thing I always ask for since if mistakes are going to be made they're most likely going to be made in the models themselves or their underlying assumptions. Without that bit of information, I have no means of evaluating the quality of the research and if I'm not given the means to evaluate the quality of the research, I'm simply going to reject it out of hand until such evidence is provided.

One of their favorite things to say is that it's more productive to just make your own model instead of picking someone else's apart, but that's not true in the slightest. They're publishing research as scientific fact, they have the responsibility to prove the quality of their research. One of the few pieces models I've actually had the chance to go through was from the hack of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit and it was horrendous, it basically took 70 years of temperature data, put it through a signaling filter a first year EE student could have programmed and, supposedly, predicted global temperatures for the next 150 years. No modeling of the sun, no modeling of natural sources of warming, no modeling based on geolocation, not even any modeling of the affects of CO2. So, I have to wonder, is the rest of the research in the field this bad and useless? I'm not really sure, but they haven't given me reason to think otherwise.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

I think one point is that if primitive man could find a way to adapt to the weather (which was more due to migration than climate change...but still...), shouldn't we be able to with all our fancy toys and modern know-how? I mean, if someone with nothing but a spear and animal skins can manage to thrive above the article circle, why couldn't we figure out how to live in a different environment. And the climatologists keep saying that no matter what we do, it won't be enough, much of the damage is already done...so why focus on stopping something we can't stop? Why not just work on dealing with the implications.

I have another question since this seems so unlike my perception of you (and I have been here since 2005). How does this play out in terms of nations with sovereign borders? Why do you think the UN is so concerned about global warming, otherwise? One might surmise that they believe that if you can slow the warming of the kettle, the lobster that lurks within will not jump out. I personally believe, on the other hand, that we would open our borders to those in need if the global warming scenario pans out.

I think the UN's concern is more centered around an ongoing animosity between the great nations and the lesser nations. This is something poor nations can point to to blame their problems on other people, so they use it as an effective propaganda tool and as a potential means for limiting the economies of more powerful nations so the poorer nations can catch up. You'll notice that the economic powers tend not to sign on to these global warming treaties and even when they do, they tend not to make many real changes to actually implement them on anything more than a symbolic level.

As for what would happen on the world political scene with dramatic changes in climate? Probably the same thing that already happens due to scarcity of resources. If powerful nations need new resources, they tend to invade those who have them but cannot defend them and take those resources; if poor nations without the means to sustain offensive campaigns need resources, we tend to treat it as a humanitarian issue. But with or without climate change, it's still going to be scarcity that drives global politics and human ambition.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

Look at a crop map of North America over the years and you’ll see there is a great migration going on in food production. Crops heading north. Corn and beans – soybeans – marching north toward the Canadian border and spilling over it into brand new territory. It’s about plant genetics and farming technique. It’s also about climate change. A southern tier turning too hot and dry. A northern planting season getting longer, more welcoming. Crop production moving. How far can it, will it go? Up next On Point: the new map of North American food production, pushing north with climate change.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Look at a crop map of North America over the years and you’ll see there is a great migration going on in food production. Crops heading north. Corn and beans – soybeans – marching north toward the Canadian border and spilling over it into brand new territory. It’s about plant genetics and farming technique. It’s also about climate change. A southern tier turning too hot and dry. A northern planting season getting longer, more welcoming. Crop production moving. How far can it, will it go? Up next On Point: the new map of North American food production, pushing north with climate change.

Anecdotally my wife have observed a change in our growing season and the varieties which can be planted in the American north east. Our family photos bear witness to this as well as plant breeding and genetic selection has had an impact.

Everything You Need To Know To Attend The Biggest Climate March In History....On Sunday, September 21st, a climate march through midtown Manhattan will kick off a week of high-profile climate events in the Big Apple. Promoted as an effort to bring unprecedented attention to climate change, the gathering comes just as as international climate negotiations ramp up in a major push toward a new global accord. The People’s Climate March, being called the “largest climate march in history” by organizers, will potentially draw over a hundred thousand people to walk through Manhattan and show a level of demand for action not seen since the era of Civil Rights marches and anti-Vietnam protests.

« Last Edit: September 10, 2014, 09:20:22 AM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

"Religions for the Earth is designed to call out the moral imperative to care for our natural world and bridge social justice issues to environmental activism. Gathering on the weekend before the United Nations Climate Summit, conference participants will come together across diverse traditions to provide leadership for the earth in a historic and critical moment.....A contingent from the conference will also participate in the People's Climate March on Sunday, September 21."

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.